There’s little doubt that our planet’s climate is changing. It also appears highly likely that human activity has been at least partly responsible, though the level of responsibility remains very much in question. But what truly matters regarding the ongoing climate debate is this: How do we fix it? Life isn’t as simple as identifying problems, pointing them out, walking away, and living happily ever after. Problems need fixing, and it is in the fixes leftists propose that expose their true agenda.
The fact is, actions by America alone will do little to change the course we’re on, whatever that course may be. Furthermore, solutions proposed by climate alarmists tend to be entirely dismissive of the impact of those solutions on our economy. And that may very well be the point.
When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-CA) unveiled her ridiculous Green New Deal three years ago, her ‘fact sheet’ lectured us about the perils of cow farts and the need to eliminate airplanes, while simultaneously waxing poetic about the need to financially support those who are “either unable or unwilling to work.” Excuse us for our skepticism, AOC, but it seems like you have ulterior motives when you try to scare us about global warming and then attempt to leverage that fear to enable fellow, lazy leftists to sit on their asses all day.
So, when we see an article such as the one published yesterday by Yahoo News titled “Leaf blowers, lawn mowers and fertilizer: How lawns contribute to climate change,” we need to scrutinize every aspect of their assertions. Consider the following points from the report:
“’[Lawns] are huge nitrogen consumers, and nitrogen is the most energy-dense nutrient that we manufacture,’ [scientist] Kent said. ‘When you add all that energy we’re dumping in lawns and compare it against the amount of biomass that’s being stored in the soil and the tissue, you come up with 1 acre of lawn [that] contributes approximately 3,112 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, which has the energy equivalent of 156 gallons of gasoline’ Kent added.”
“Likewise, short, regularly cut grass does not absorb much water — an increasingly important task as climate change leads to more flooding from heavier storms — and that runoff can funnel fertilizer and herbicide into lakes, rivers and oceans, potentially poisoning fish and harming swimmers.”
What are the solutions? You won’t be surprised:
“There are also lower-impact ways of caring for a lawn. Using only manual tools, like a push mower, or electric ones, will remove the emissions from two-stroke engines. According to the Electric Power Research Institute, replacing half of gas mowers in the United States with electric mowers would save as much emissions as taking 2 million cars off the road. Taking a more natural approach to lawn management — cutting it less often, skipping the weed killer and letting the clovers and dandelions grow — would also minimize the impact.”
If totally altering our economy is unnecessary for addressing climate change – and credible analyses on the matter state exactly that – then what meaningful impact would we accomplish by having a nation scattered with clover and dandelion-filled lawns in constant need of mowing? The answer seems pretty obvious. Nothing.
Why are the climate cultists targeting lawns? Because they need to come up with new topics and ideas. Billions of dollars are being spent on climate change research worldwide, and they have to look at something. So, the real question is.. why not attack green lawns? They’re probably owned by money-hungry conservatives anyway.
By Jordan Case
Jordan Case offers opinions from the unique perspective of both entrepreneur and parent and is a regular contributor to The Blue State Conservative. Jordan does not participate in the cesspool of social media.
Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.
Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author’s opinion.